As Peter Suber (one of the 16 original signatories of the BOAI) observes, the progress of OA is undeniable, from the very beginning of the movement. However, on the whole, the growth of OA could have been and still can be faster. Suber detects the causes for this to be “deeply entrenched in institutional practices which are very, very hard to change”. (The right to research coalition 2016 p. 5). His suggestion that, compared to economical and technological factors, the entrenched institutional inertia is a more tenacious culprit in the move for OA prompts this study to inquire to what extent cultural change is perceived warranted in this respect and whether it would attract keener authors indeed.

Another study also points to literature proving that the organisational culture has a great influence on authors’ submission of works - one referenced example in their study being the multi-faceted role of new-generation librarians, who are “leading the IR development and implementation, serving on planning and advisory committees, pilot-testing software, recruiting content and identifying early adopters.” (Nemati-Anaraki and Tavassoli-Farahi 2018 p. 14). Viewing IRs as a collaborative platform, more qualitative studies are desirable, to uncover faculty perceptions of such collaboration.

If one is to look into the organisational culture around the use of IRs and cross-institution working patterns, then a thorough understanding of these patterns, personal characteristics and compatibility issues, as well as to what extent they contribute to faculty’s perceptions of the depositing process can neatly be gained by using the grounded theory methodology. This would not only facilitate the exploration of a varied range of people’s behaviour and perceptions, but it also allows for granular interpretation of data and construction of a theory that can be instrumental in the implementation of cultural change, should this be desired in the future.

In another comprehensive study on researchers’ engagement with platforms such as RIMS (Research Information Management Systems), Stivilia, Wu and Lee (2018) find that these frameworks can be used in the development of tools and mechanisms to increase researchers’ participation. Jain (2011) also advocates for IRs that not only inspire interest and feelings of value in faculty, but also provide “organisational coherence” (Jain 2011 p. 137). This aspect of motivation, engagement and value, as well as an overall feeling of coherence within an institution can best be explored by using qualitative methods. If the collected and interpreted data is meant to be used in addressing issues with regard to the improvement of green OA through IRs, then attempting to build a grounded theory could offer rewarding results by supplying valuable decision variables.